Feds Collect Record Individual Income Taxes in 2018; Still Run $779b Deficit

The federal government collected a record $1,683,537,000,000 in individual income taxes in fiscal 2018 (October 2017 through September 2018), according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released today.

However, the federal government also ran a deficit of $778,996,000,000 during the fiscal year, according to the statement. . .

The previous record for individual income tax collections in a fiscal year was in fiscal 2015, when the Treasury collected $1,634,657,240,000 in individual income taxes (in constant September 2018 dollars). . .

Despite the record amount collected in individual income taxes in fiscal 2018, overall real federal tax revenues in fiscal 2018 were lower than in any of the previous three years. In fiscal 2018, total tax collections equaled $3,328,745,000,000, according to the Treasury statement. That was less than the $3,446,613,230,000 (in constant September 2018 dollars) that the Treasury collected in fiscal 2015; less than the $3,415,674,450,000 (in constant September 2018 dollars) collected in fiscal 2016; and less than the $3,390,373,210,000 (in constant September 2018 dollars) collected in fiscal 2017.

While the federal government was collecting more income taxes from individuals in fiscal 2018, it was collecting less from corporations. Total corporation income tax collections in fiscal 2018 were $204,733,000,000. In fiscal 2017, they were $303,811,700,000 (in constant September 2018 dollars). In fiscal 2016, they were $313,233,700,000 (in constant September 2018 dollars); and in fiscal 2015, they were $364,738,790,000 (in constant September 2018 dollars). (Read more from “Feds Collect Record Individual Income Taxes in 2018; Still Run $779B Deficit” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Here’s What Elizabeth Warren Is Really Doing With Her Dumb DNA Test

Elizabeth Warren doesn’t need to prove she’s Native American, and that’s not why she released the results of a DNA test to the Boston Globe. The Globe reports, quoting the DNA report, “Warren’s pure Native American ancestor appears in her family tree ‘in the range of 6-10 generations ago.’” This gives a range of 1/64 to 1/1024 Native American (the other 1023/1024 is straight cis white woman privilege). Warren herself claimed it was her great-great-grandmother who was Native American; that would give a fraction of 1/32. The Boston Globe had to correct its story because it initially got the math wrong and misreported the range of her possible ancestry. That’s hardly going to silence her critics, least of all President Donald Trump, who takes delight in derisively calling her “Pocahontas” at his rallies.

Questions about Warren’s claimed Native American heritage have doggedly followed her since her 2012 campaign for U.S. Senate, when GOP opposition research discovered a Fordham Law Review article touting her as Harvard Law School’s “first woman of color” on the faculty. Years earlier, Warren was listed as a minority faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania. Warren is the butt of many jokes in conservative media, often referred to as Fauxcahontas or Chief Spreading Bull, but Warren is not trying to make the jokes go away. She’s only added fuel to the fire. No, the point, as she explains in a video that was released in conjunction with the DNA report, is pure identity politics.

“Trump can say whatever he wants about me, but mocking Native Americans or any group in order to try and get at me, that’s not what America stands for,” Warren narrates in, let’s face it, the opening ad of her 2020 presidential campaign about her family’s story.

“[My parents] were real people. The love they shared, the struggles they endured, the family they built, the story they lived will always be etched on my heart. And no one — not even the president of the United States — will ever take it away from me,” she says.

The facts of the DNA test, which is inconclusive, do not matter. This is all about feelings. This is all about mean old President Trump using racial “slurs” to demean a woman who’s fighting for “change” in Washington D.C. If Warren identifies as a Native American, who is Donald Trump or anyone else to tell her she’s wrong? A bigot, that’s who, and that’s all that matters, and that’s why minorities can vote for Elizabeth Warren in 2020.

Now notice what’s not being discussed. The kind of change Elizabeth Warren’s progressivism advocates is the soft tyranny of a ubiquitous federal government that reaches out and nationalizes American businesses, but it’s more fun to mock her claimed heritage. Her plan to double down on Obamacare’s failures with more subsidies, more price controls, and more regulations as a prelude to a single-payer Medicare for All scheme is ignored. Her open-borders zealotry and demands to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to appease to her far-Left base? Forgotten.

And what alternatives are conservatives offering to these demands from the Left?

It may be great for clicks and views to follow the mainstream media’s narrative on Warren’s ancestry, but it doesn’t do a thing to advance conservatism. Former Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., tried to make Warren’s lies about her ancestry a campaign issue, and do you know what happened to him? We call him former senator.

Why don’t we stop the clickbait and challenge Warren and the Democrats on the issues that will actually matter when Americans go to vote, before we lose? (For more from the author of “Here’s What Elizabeth Warren Is Really Doing With Her Dumb DNA Test” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton Finally Admitted Democrats Think It’s Okay to Cheat to Win

Within the span of a week, two high-profile Democrats verbalized their party’s perspective on politics. “When they go low, we kick them,” former attorney general Eric Holder frothed to a group of loyalists. “That is what this new Democratic Party is about,” Barack Obama’s former cabinet official proclaimed to shouts of “fight, fight, fight.” (Holder later backtracked.)

Then a few days later Hillary Clinton told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about.” Holder and Clinton have finally voiced the reality: There’s politics. There’s dirty politics. And then there’s the trifecta of progressive politics—lying, cheating, and stealing to win. . .

With the filibuster gone, Democrats play politics with a different detail: Senate rules that, absent consent, require a formal “cloture” vote for any presidential appointee subject to confirmation, followed by a day without action, then 30 hours of post-cloture debate. This tactic, so perfected by Democrats that The New York Times branded their efforts the “art of the delay,” translates into “an average of three and a half days spent considering each nominee.” To put that into perspective, it would take a full “11 years and four months to fill all possible Trump administration spots.”

But that’s politics. Politics might not be pretty, but it’s fair and it’s the American way. Republicans have the power to alter the rules or use them against the Democrats should the left ever regain power. That’s one thing.

Then there’s dirty politics: the sensationalistic election-year advertisements that portray opponents as tossing a wheelchair-bound grandma off a cliff; or icing a debate opponent with a surprise news conference featuring Bill Clinton sexual assault accusers Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broaddrick. (Read more from “Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton Finally Admitted Democrats Think It’s Okay to Cheat to Win” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Sen. Mocks Elizabeth Warren’s DNA Test Results With an Epic Tweet

By Townhall. Politicos on both sides of the aisle have talked about Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) DNA test results throughout the day. After all, the fact that she might be 1/1,024th Native American is mind-blowing. But, remember, she really touts herself as a “minority.”

Republicans saw through her act right from the beginning. Everyone wanted to see DNA test results for how long? Months? Years, even?

Once it was finally released, everyone harped on her, including Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). He took to Twitter to mock her DNA test. All I can say is… Well played, Senator. Well played.

(Read more from “Sen. Mocks Elizabeth Warren’s DNA Test Results With an Epic Tweet” HERE)


Obama Campaign Manager Says Warren’s DNA Results Hurt Democrats in 2018

By The Daily Caller. Former Obama campaign strategist Jim Messina questioned the timing of Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren releasing a DNA test Monday.

Warren released the results Monday after being mocked and attacked by Republicans for claiming Native American heritage with no verification for decades. Warren’s results showed that she may have between 1/64th and 1/1,024th Indian DNA, though the test that did not use Native American DNA.

Messina, who served as President Barack Obama’s White House deputy chief of staff for operations and 2012 campaign manager, was not happy about the media storm that Warren created by releasing the results into the contentious 2018 election cycle. (Read more from “Obama Campaign Manager Says Warren’s DNA Results Hurt Democrats in 2018” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

CNN’s ‘Reliable Sources’ Speculates Trump Inspired Murder of Saudi Journalist

On CNN’s Sunday broadcast of “Reliable Sources,” host Brian Stelter and Washington Post editorial editor Fred Hiatt used a segment about disappeared Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi to baselessly speculate that President Trump’s harsh criticism of mainstream Americans news outlets could have had a part in inspiring Khashoggi’s murder.

Although they still had no direct evidence that Khashoggi had even been killed at that point, let alone any information about why the Saudi government would murder him, Stelter felt the urge to suggest that Trump, along with “other world leaders,” might be responsible for motivating Khashoggi’s murder and dismemberment. . .:

HIATT: I think, even for people who wanted to give MBS [Saudi Prince Mohammad bin Salman] the benefit of the doubt, this has to be a watershed moment. This is, if the reports are true, a crime of an entirely different caliber, and it should not be possible for anybody to go back to business as usual.

STELTER: To lure someone to a consulate, to dismember a body and take it back to Saudi — it is a crime of a different caliber. I wonder if you look at what’s happened in the last twelve days and you wonder if “enemy of the people” rhetoric — not just from President Trump, but also then from other world leaders — has anything to do with this, anything at all?

Although he seemed a bit hesitant to fully agree with Stelter’s premise at first, Hiatt did ultimately concur that Trump’s “enemy of the people”-type statements about American journalists were “part of the big picture” surrounding Khashoggi’s presumed murder. After stressing that his killers should be the “focus” of any condemnation or investigation, Hiatt also argued that Trump’s lack of liberal international moralizing about “democratic values” had opened up the possibility of murdering journalists. (Read more from “CNN’s ‘Reliable Sources’ Speculates Trump Inspired Murder of Saudi Journalist” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What This ‘Study’ Claiming You’re More Likely to Be Shot by a Cop in Pro-Gun States Doesn’t Mention

Researchers from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Northeastern University came together to study the correlation between states’ gun ownership and officer-involved shootings. The researchers published their findings in the Journal for Urban Health. Their grandiose takeaway: if you live in a state with “looser” gun laws – AKA you’re allowed to utilize your Second Amendment rights – then you’re more likely to be shot by police officers.

Their abstract has three main points that are rather troubling:

Although numerous studies have examined how rates of police killings of civilians are related to several ecologic determinants of these events, no peer-reviewed study to date has examined the extent to which variation in police involved firearm homicides is explained by firearm prevalence while adjusting for violent crime rates (the most well-established ecologic factor associated with fatal police shootings).

What do researches consider a “violent” crime? Are they using the FBI’s definition which includes “murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault”? . . .

The researchers are using data from the Washington Post, a liberal, anti-gun publication. You know what that means: they’re going to cherry pick which “data” they include. And you know the data they store is going to fit their gun control narrative. (Read more from “What This ‘Study’ Claiming You’re More Likely to Be Shot by a Cop in Pro-Gun States Doesn’t Mention” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This Is What Happened With the Stormy Daniels Lawsuit

A federal judge on Monday dismissed porn star Stormy Daniels’ defamation lawsuit against President Trump, saying the president was well within his First Amendment rights when he took to Twitter to mock her.

Judge S. James Otero said Mr. Trump was using understandable hyperbole when he accused the woman, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, of a “con job” after she released a sketch artist rendering of a man she said threatened her to stay silent about her alleged sexual encounter with Mr. Trump years ago.

The judge, a Bush appointee, said the back-and-forth was standard politicking from both sides, and he wouldn’t step in to limit the president’s ability to fight back.

“In short, should plaintiff publicly voice her opinions about Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump is entitled to publicly voice non-actionable opinions about plaintiff,” he ruled. “To allow plaintiff to proceed with her defamation action would, in effect, permit plaintiff to make public allegations against the president without giving him the opportunity to respond. Such a holding would violate the First Amendment.” . . .

[Avenatti] also said the judge’s ruling was “limited,” and insisted they’ll pursue Mrs. Clifford’s other lawsuits against Mr. Trump and his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen, who she says paid her $130,000 in hush money to keep her from talking about an alleged sexual encounter from years ago. (Read more from “This Is What Happened With the Stormy Daniels Lawsuit” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Jeff Sessions Rips Judges Over Anti-Trump Bias

Attorney General Jeff Sessions unleashed a blistering assault on federal judges Monday, saying anti-Trump bias has led some to abandon their role as legal referees and become “political actors” erecting roadblocks to the president’s policies.

In unusually stark language, Mr. Sessions suggested judges could soon face “calls for their replacement” if they don’t cool it.

He blasted one judge who called the president’s policy toward illegal immigrants “heartless,” and said another judge put “the inner workings of a Cabinet secretary’s mind” on trial to pave a path to block the government from asking about citizenship on the 2020 census.

“Once we go down this road in American government, there is no turning back,” Mr. Sessions said in a speech to the conservative Heritage Foundation. “We are seeing it in case after case. When a hot-button policy issue ends up in litigation, judges are starting to believe their role is to examine the entire process that led to the policy decision — to redo the entire political debate in their courtrooms. . .

Others, including a majority of justices on the Supreme Court in this year’s ruling upholding the president’s travel limits, looked chiefly at the policies themselves, saying that’s the crux of their judiciary’s role in the government overall. (Read more from “Jeff Sessions Rips Judges Over Anti-Trump Bias” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Transgender Cyclist Celebrates World Championship in Women’s Event, Attacks Critics

On Sunday, two women competing in the women’s sprint 35-39 age bracket at the 2018 UCI Masters Track Cycling World Championships in Los Angeles wound up finishing second and third, losing to a biologically male Canadian professor who identifies as a woman.

As The Daily Caller reported, McKinnon finished ahead of Carolien Van Herrikhuyzen of the Netherlands and American cyclist Jennifer Wagner to take home the gold. Last January, USA Today quoted McKinnon railing against any requirement that would force men to suppress their testosterone in order to enter women’s events. McKinnon stated, “We cannot have a woman legally recognized as a trans woman in society, and not be recognized that way in sports. Focusing on performance advantage is largely irrelevant because this is a rights issue. We shouldn’t be worried about trans people taking over the Olympics. We should be worried about their fairness and human rights instead.” . . .

Another transgender . . ., who competes on a higher level than McKinnon, has argued with McKinnon, acknowledging that the inherent sex differences between men and women making competing against women unfair. (Read more from “Transgender Cyclist Celebrates World Championship in Women’s Event, Says Critics Are ‘Transphobic Bigots'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘People Just Can’t Know That’: Senator, Staff Exposed in Undercover Sting Video

James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas released a new undercover video Monday night showing Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and her staffers expressing support for radical gun control measures that they admit she can’t state publicly.

The video shows McCaskill and her staff admitting that she supports banning semi-automatic weapons, bump stocks, high-capacity magazines, along with supporting other far-left policies.

Rob Mills, who works on McCaskill’s campaign, says in the video that McCaskill can’t be open about her policies because “she has a bunch of Republican voters” and “that could hurt her ability to get elected.”

Nicolas Starost, who also works McCaskill’s campaign, says in the video that former President Barack Obama isn’t campaigning for McCaskill because she doesn’t want to be cast as too far-left, even though she believes in the same policies that Obama does.

(Read more from “‘People Just Can’t Know That’: Senator, Staff Exposed in Undercover Sting Video” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.